Re: [boost] RE: Serialization Library Review

[Matthias Troyer]

We use both XML and binary XDR formats for serialization in our applications: XML for short files and for meta-information, files in XDR and/or HDF5 for large data sets. While I can imagine a serialization of a class into XML as part of a serialization library like the one proposed, I cannot easily imagine deserialization in the framework of the current library. It would need a full XML parser, which does not yet exist in boost.

Matthias

On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 11:55 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:

From: "Robert Ramey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

FWIW, in my experience, XML is a better test for whether a serialization
library handles custom formats well. Sequence-based, header-only formats

are

very similar, but a reasonable XML serializer creates a tree-like
representation, with nested tags.

After a cursory investigation as to what it would take to make an XML
archive, I've concluded that:

a) I don't thing XML is rich enough to capture all possible C++ data

structures

b) This would imply the creation of a system of reflection for C++
    i) I not convinced this is a good idea
    ii) should be dealt with as an indepent project in any case

c) XML has a central task to represent data in a platform/programming

language

independent way. Serialization has the central task of saving/restore the
totality of the state of C++ data structures. These tasks are not

identical

and any course of action based on the presumption that they are is
doomed to be frustrating an most likely a failure in my opinion.

FWIW, my experience directly contradicts all of your points. It is possible
that I misunderstood them, of course, as you haven't provided details.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost